Why doesnt Nasa have any detailed pictures of the Moon anomally Shard?

reply to post by Rewey

Silly me. I always thought those were CGI.

reply to post by Phage


I see a tower like structure which rises above the Moon's surface casting an obvious shadow . Don't know if the shadow is in wrong direction .

reply to post by wolveriine

Note the "incident angle" in the description of the image. That is the direction of the sunlight relative to the surface and the spacecraft. It is 80º. That is from the upper right of the unrotated image. It is not consistent with the "shadow".

If you look at the direction of the shadows in the craters you will see that the direction of the "shadow" of the "tower" does not match. Unless the Sun was in a different location from the point of view of the tower and every thing else in the image, it is not a shadow.

The "shadow" is a feature (a crater perhaps) on the surface. The "tower" is a flaw in the photograph like many others.

reply to post by Phage


im not convinced with what you are describing about the incident light, position angle of space craft.
When i look at photo i see black and white regions in th photo which is consistent with the black and white photos seen of the moon surface. The craters show as black areas and surface regions white. I think your argument for the direction of the shadow therefore the shard is a picture flaw is tenuous.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

You are in error.
The illumination data for the image is provided. Of course, since it is from the dreaded NASA you will reject it but the visual evidence is readily apparent.
The up-sun side of the craters is in shadow. The down-sun side of the craters are sunlit.

reply to post by Phage


The shard can still be casting shadow even if that is true because it depends on the angle/slope of the terrain in which the shadow is falling. We cant see the profile angle of the ground where its shadow falls and we cant assume the ground is flush with the verticle.

Phage,

The definition of Incidence Angle you are using to debunk is so utterly wrong and your debunk using the wrong definition so lengthy and seemingly confident that I just had to call you out in case people actually believed this particular debunk.

Incidence angle your are referring is a common measurement found in aerial images of the Moon and other planetary bodies. This measurement is always between 0° and 90° and defines the angle between surface normal (a line straight out towards the sky from surface the object is located) and Sun's vertical position (a line straight to the sun from the object). If the Sun is directly above the object, the incidence angle will be 0°, if the sun is directly on the horizon, the incidence angle will be 90°.

Angle of incidence does NOT tell the DIRECTION of shadow. Incidence angle determines the LENGTH of shadow. The higher the incidence angle, the longer the shadow length will be. Imagine during the day when the Sun is high in the sky, shadow will be shorter (low angle of incidence) vs when during evening when the Sun is low on the horizon and length of shadow will be longer (high angle of incidence).

Here is a simplified thought experiment to show why you CANNOT debunk anything by saying angle of incidence determines direction of shadow.

Assume that at noon, the sun is straight above your head (angle of incidence = 0°) and you cast no shadow.
Assume that at 10 AM, the sun is 60° above the eastern horizon. (angle of incidence = 30°)
Assume that at 2 PM, the sun is 60° above the western horizon (angle of incidence = 30°)

At 10 AM and 2 PM, the angle of incidence is same.
So, do you think your direction of shadow will be the same at 10 AM and once again at 2 PM?
According to Phage's debunk, the direction of your shadow will be same at 10 AM and 2 PM.

The correct answer is the LENGTH of your shadow will be the same, the direction will actually be roughly opposite depending on your latitude.


Basically, incidence angle is most commonly used to calculate the height of an object or depth of crater, by taking the length of shadow value and incidence angle. Please check this post of mine to see how incidence angle and length of shadow was used to calculate the height of a possibly artifical object on the Moon.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by wolveriine

 

Note the "incident angle" in the description of the image. That is the direction of the sunlight relative to the surface and the spacecraft. It is 80º. That is from the upper right of the unrotated image. It is not consistent with the "shadow".

If you look at the direction of the shadows in the craters you will see that the direction of the "shadow" of the "tower" does not match. Unless the Sun was in a different location from the point of view of the tower and every thing else in the image, it is not a shadow.

The "shadow" is a feature (a crater perhaps) on the surface. The "tower" is a flaw in the photograph like many others.

edit on 2/10/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply to post by AthlonSavage

Tell me how a shadow can be cast from an object toward the general direction of the source of illumination.

reply to post by Phage

Tell me how a shadow can be cast from an object toward the general direction of the source of illumination.

Well its you who is saying that the source of source of illumination is in the wrong direction i dont think your argument holds up well for that. If this is the start of debating incident angles of light and directions of shadow I suggest a simple diagram in paint which shows these details will help as a stating point and ensure everyone is on the same page.

reply to post by PINGi14

This measurement is always between 0° and 90° and defines the angle between surface normal (a line straight out towards the sky from surface the object is located) and Sun's vertical position (a line straight to the sun from the object).

You are correct. I should have referred to the azimuth angle which was 91º.
In any case the lighting of the craters reveals the direction of the lighting. It is inconsistent with the "shadow" of the "shard".

Thanks for acknowledging. Nothing personal of course.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PINGi14

 

This measurement is always between 0° and 90° and defines the angle between surface normal (a line straight out towards the sky from surface the object is located) and Sun's vertical position (a line straight to the sun from the object).

You are correct. I should have referred to the azimuth angle which was 91º.
In any case the lighting of the craters reveals the direction of the lighting. It is inconsistent with the "shadow" of the "shard".

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by PINGi14

 

This measurement is always between 0° and 90° and defines the angle between surface normal (a line straight out towards the sky from surface the object is located) and Sun's vertical position (a line straight to the sun from the object).

You are correct. I should have referred to the azimuth angle which was 91º.
In any case the lighting of the craters reveals the direction of the lighting. It is inconsistent with the "shadow" of the "shard".

Sorry but here i´d have to disagree

The shadows cast by the craters seem consistant with the shadow cast by the anomally, to me. Just by looking at the shadow from the tower, one can imagine where the sun would have to be to cast such a shadow. If we then look at the "bigger picture", it seems very feasible that is actually the way the sun is shining on the rest of the terrain as well, not just the craters, but on the full picture landscape from the original pic.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

reply to post by Phage


Phage, thanks for linked pictures.

In the top photo linked the darkness in craters is falling to the right and not left as which is the case in the bottom photo. In the bottom photo i see the shadows pointing in direction whic is very consistent with shard shadow direction.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

In the top photo linked the darkness in craters is falling to the right and not left

No. The shadows are falling to the left. The Sun is on the right. The up-sun side of the crater is shadowed by the up-sun rim of the crater. Like this:

In the bottom photo i see the shadows pointing in direction which is very consistent with shard shadow direction.

Even if you were correct about the direction of the shadows on the other craters you are wrong about this. Crater Bruce lies at latitude 1ºN. Using approximate alignments between Bruce and Blagg, the "shard" may lie somewhere around 2ºS. Using the Lunar Orbiter image map it could be as far south as 7º. This gives a maximum difference of 8º in solar azimuth due to difference in latitude. We see a difference in the neighborhood of 90º. If that were a shadow cast by the "shard" the Sun would have to be near the south pole of the Moon. That does not occur. Ever. The axial tilt of the Moon with respect to the ecliptic is only 1.5º.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by AthlonSavage

 

In the top photo linked the darkness in craters is falling to the right and not left

No. The shadows are falling to the left. The Sun is on the right. The up-sun side of the crater is shadowed by the up-sun rim of the crater. Like this:

In the bottom photo i see the shadows pointing in direction which is very consistent with shard shadow direction.

Even if you were correct about the direction of the shadows on the other craters you are wrong about this. Crater Bruce lies at latitude 1ºN. Using approximate alignments between Bruce and Blagg, the "shard" may lie somewhere around 2ºS. Using the Lunar Orbiter image map it could be as far south as 7º. This gives a maximum difference of 8º in solar azimuth due to difference in latitude. We see a difference in the neighborhood of 90º. If that were a shadow cast by the "shard" the Sun would have to be near the south pole of the Moon. That does not occur. Ever.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Ok i see where you are comig from here. And i agree, the shadows from those craters would mean the shadow from the tower would be directly BEHIND it, from our point of view(the point of view from the camera). But maybe it actually is? We still see a faint shadow in another direction though(pointing to the left) so how do we account for this one?

The Earth is, to the moon, a very luminous object. If it´s position would be directly down right from where the picture where taken, this means it would be hit with the full force of the sun, reflecting a certain portion of this light back at the moon. This could account for this shadow being cast fromt he tower, perhaps?

Bear in mind, that even here on earth, in the blackest night, we can still se quite well during a full moon, with shadows being cast due to the luminosity of the moon, and this is purely reflected light. Now the earth is alot bigger, and would reflect ALOT more light on the moon, during similar circumstances.

reply to post by NeoVain

if´s position would be directly down right from where the picture where taken,

Down? You mean "south" of the Moon? Think about that for a second. Think about how we only see one face of the Moon. Think about how this location is just about in the middle of that face. You can also think about whether objects cast a shadow from the Moon when it is in the sky during the day. Think about how the "shard" is brightly lit by the Sun. It is daytime there.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

if´s position would be directly down right from where the picture where taken,

Down? You mean "south" of the Moon? Think about that for a second. Think about how we only see one face of the Moon. Think about how this location is just about in the middle of that face. You can also think about whether objects cast a shadow from the Moon when it is in the sky during the day.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I mean down right on the picture. Just look at the shadow of the tower and imagine where the earth would have to be to cast such a shadow, where it to supply enough luminosity. Then also imagine how it would be hit by the sun, where it in that position.

reply to post by NeoVain

Now imagine what the Moon would look like from Earth if it were there. Does it ever look like that? Do we ever see the "bottom" of the Moon?
Now think about what sort of a shadow a large Moon causes when the Sun is still up on Earth. Ever see one? I haven't.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Now imagine what the Moon would look like from Earth if it were there. Does it ever look like that? Do we ever see the "bottom" of the Moon?
Now think about what sort of a shadow a large Moon causes when the Sun is still up on Earth. Ever see one? I haven't.

edit on 2/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

We would not see the moon since it would be daytime here. For those that had night, the moon would be on the other side of the earth, thus not visible. Did you imagine us being a "full earth" from the perspecive of the moon as i tried to explain? Also would we be able to see the moon, we would only see a sliver of it, less than a half-moon (crescent), and sure, i have seen it like this many times.